Ronald Reagan

God can´t. It would be called a paradox, but it isn´t: making a rock so big it can´t be moved is nonsense. (But I´d be happy hearing you explain it.) ;)

God makes rock everywhere He is. Which is *at least* the entire universe. One big rock.

Now He has nowhere to move it to. (Admittedly he could rotate it. But the old saying isn't "God can't make a rock so big he can't spin it.")

The logical impossibility isn't in making the rock, it's in moving it.
 
You are forgetting about God´s omnipotence. ;) (Being omnipotent, no matter how big the rock, God will be able to move it. The combination of metaphysical - God - and physical - rock - is what makes it nonsense. It´s like the ´How many angels will fit on a needlepoint?´ question. Answer: infinite number, since angels don´t answer to laws of physics. So there´s always ´room´ for 1 more.)
 
Was the October Revolution as self-evidently heinous as the abuses of Stalin and his successors? It involved very limited bloodshed and enjoyed popular support, which can't be said of much else on that list. I get the impression that, yet again, Kochman's mouth has outpaced his understanding.

(Of course, he won't reply to this, as outlined below, but it was a point worth making.)

At the Russian Constituent Assembly the Bolsheviks finished 2nd behind the social revolutionaries by 8 million votes, a vote which took place 1 month later! Unless you consider the October revolution to include other factions and not just the Bolsheviks, "popular support" seems to be questionable at the very least.
 
You are forgetting about God´s omnipotence.

No, I'm not. As strongly implied in the previous post I follow the "scholastic" interpretation, which means it can't violate logical impossibilities. Or, put another - controversial - way I don't just smile and shrug when considering the term. (So more T.A. and C.S.Lewis than... well, can't remember who thinks logical impossibilities should be in the "Can Do" list.)

The combination of metaphysical - God - and physical - rock - is what makes it nonsense.

So.. you're saying an omnipotent deity can't move *any* rocks? Even if He wanted to? Even if he's Ronald Reagan?

The usual response - even among much of the theistic school - is that it's a logical impossibility to create the rock. If God can move any rock then it's impossible to create one He can't move. Not some metaphysical/physical divide. So the rock-thing doesn't violate omnipotence anymore than the inability to square a circle or make 1+1 = 3. (Assuming, again, that logical impossibilities aren't required of omnipotence.)

My reformulation just shifts the location of the logically impossible concept. (Come to think of it, I think the classic phrasing is "can't lift it". I should change my sig. Ah ha! Retro-correction!)

It´s like the ´How many angels will fit on a needlepoint?´ question. Answer: infinite number, since angels don´t answer to laws of physics. So there´s always ´room´ for 1 more.)

??? 4. If we're talking about the common type of pin, it's 4.


I was feeling somewhat bad for being off-topic before I scanned the last couple pages...
 
At the Russian Constituent Assembly the Bolsheviks finished 2nd behind the social revolutionaries by 8 million votes, a vote which took place 1 month later! Unless you consider the October revolution to include other factions and not just the Bolsheviks, "popular support" seems to be questionable at the very least.
What about the Left-SRs? They were allied to the Bolsheviks, and between them represented a majority in the Congress of Soviets. If we take the more up-to-date soviet elections as a guideline, then the Right-SRs were significantly over-represented in the Constituent Assembly, because the formal split between Left and Right SRs post-dated the elections to the Constituent Assembly, and the unified party list had been weighted in their favour.
 
So.. you're saying an omnipotent deity can't move *any* rocks? Even if He wanted to? Even if he's Ronald Reagan?

Especially if God was Ronald Reagan (since he´s dead), but God being omnipotent implies he can make a rock as big as imaginable (or bigger than that even), and always be able to move it. Your example of a rock equal to the size of the universe wouldn´t be a problem: why wouldn´t God be able to move the universe? Nobody would be able to tell the universe moved, since we are all in it, but God has no problem with such physical limits. You might think this illogical, but it isn´t: God is not a physical being (unless he wants to).

If God can move any rock then it's impossible to create one He can't move.

Correct. Ergo it´s a non-issue. (I was trying to explain the question itself is illogical.)°

And I can only see your solution to the angel on a needletip puzzle as random: why not 3 or 5? Counting the number of non-physical beings on top of a needletip follows the same logic: since angels do not take up space (unless God makes it so), the number should be infinite.

Again, here, the question is illogical in the first place.

At this point I´m beginning to think this should be in the Random philosophical thoughts thread... :mischief:

° As illogical as assigning to Ronald Reagan feats beyond the facts. ;)
 
why wouldn´t God be able to move the universe? Nobody would be able to tell the universe moved

It's not a matter of noticing. It's a matter of where He'd move it. If the universe consists of every contiguous, reachable point there's no where to move the universe to. Plus, remember, I said "at least", and specified that God was to make rock everywhere He is. If God is Eternal and Infinite and makes rock everywhere He is... that's really Everywhere.

Correct. Ergo it´s a non-issue. (I was trying to explain the question itself is illogical.)

I don't think so. To put it another way: the conventional answer limits itself to "rocks" that don't constitute a plenum. Just because it's absurd logical extreme doesn't mean God can't do it.


And that doesn't make the question itself illogical - we can still arrive at a yes/no answer.

Again, here, the question is illogical in the first place.

Assuming angels and pins are both strictly nonphysical, then I agree.

At this point I´m beginning to think this should be in the Random philosophical thoughts thread... :mischief:

Only if Reagan isn't God, which I believe is a point being disputed. But I'll stop now...
 
The deal with Reagan, not something ordinary member = socialist/fascist on this board could understand, was he the last American leader who wasn't socialist/fascist in disquise.

He didn't exactly go far enough when given presidency, but he was the last. There will not be another one for a long long time.

He also gave really good speeches and had the ability to rally people in oposition for socialism, hence he was dangeous, hence left has always, then and now, hated, feared and tried to mock and ignore him.

Moderator Action: Please do not call the 'ordinary member' a socialist or fascist.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
The deal with Reagan, not something ordinary member = socialist/fascist on this board could understand, was he the last American leader who wasn't socialist/fascist in disquise.

He didn't exactly go far enough when given presidency, but he was the last. There will not be another one for a long long time.

He also gave really good speeches and had the ability to rally people in oposition for socialism, hence he was dangeous, hence left has always, then and now, hated, feared and tried to mock and ignore him.


There weren't any socialists in the US before Reagan, and none after. So that's a non issue. America's "left" was barely liberal before Reagan, and there is no left now. Non-existent socialists don't oppose his memory because, you know, they are non-existent.
 
There weren't any socialists in the US before Reagan, and none after. So that's a non issue. America's "left" was barely liberal before Reagan, and there is no left now. Non-existent socialists don't oppose his memory because, you know, they are non-existent.

not in name, but whatever you call yourselves, liberals, progressives etc., you all look the same to me (and I can see rather good, thank you)
 
There weren't any socialists in the US before Reagan, and none after. So that's a non issue. America's "left" was barely liberal before Reagan, and there is no left now. Non-existent socialists don't oppose his memory because, you know, they are non-existent.
So you think that a significant portion of this forum's membership - let alone that of the internet generally - is either lying or mistaken about their ideological preferences?
 
So you think that a significant portion of this forum's membership - let alone that of the internet generally - is either lying or mistaken about their ideological preferences?

I believe he was referencing people in politics not individual citizens.
 
So you think that a significant portion of this forum's membership - let alone that of the internet generally - is either lying or mistaken about their ideological preferences?

How many of those are Americans? What's a statistically significant part of the American population?



not in name, but whatever you call yourselves, liberals, progressives etc., you all look the same to me (and I can see rather good, thank you)


Progressive liberals in the US do not resemble socialists in any significant way. I choose liberalism because I don't want socialism.
 
I was feeling somewhat bad for being off-topic before I scanned the last couple pages...

Actually the last page had probably the two most on-topic posts in the thread.

I heard Reagan's admin was the one who introduced Trickle Down economics. Is this true?

I also heard he increased the gap between rich and poor by freezing the minimum wage, cutting the budget for public housing and Section 8 rent subsidies in half, and eliminating the antipoverty Community Development Block Grant program, cut the budgets of non-military programs including Medicaid, food stamps, federal education programs and the EPA. While he protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, his administration attempted to purge many people with disabilities from the Social Security disability rolls.

The administration's stance toward the Savings and Loan industry contributed to the Savings and loan crisis. In order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. Reagan himself described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

War on Drugs
In 1986, Reagan signed a drug enforcement bill that budgeted $1.7 billion to fund the War on Drugs and specified a mandatory minimum penalty for drug offenses which did little to fight drugs, but did a lot to financially burden America. Arguably Nancy Reagan's effort of raising awareness had more effect.

All true. In the Republican campaign of 1980 GHW Bush called the trickle down theory, which at the time had been relabeled Supply Side economics, Voodoo economics. Bush was right. But by the end of Reagan's term, Trickle Down was the official policy of the Republican party. Most of America's federal debt stems from that. The tax cuts themselves probably only account for 40-50% of the total debt accumulated since 1981. However Reagan increased spending a great deal as well. Now to be fair, Reagan then raised taxes 7 years in a row, but not by enough. Reagan was always working with a fraudulent budget because he was too incompetent of an executive to fire people who gave him false information year after year. Eventually the spending increases and the tax shortfalls led the following 2 presidents to have to raise taxes repeatedly, as well as push some real fiscal discipline, in order to stop the annual deficits. Something GW Bush reversed within a month of taking office.

He also cut welfare drastically. Reagan claimed that he wanted to trim government by cutting weak claims, not claims by weak people. Once in office that was abandoned, and Reagan became the president of special interests at the expense of the poor. Any weak claim could get money. Any weak person was on their own.

Deregulation of finance, particularly the savings and loan industry, cost the government in bailouts some $88billion and in the long run helped set the stage for financial crisis of 2008. It was a huge loss to everyone except those robbers in the banks and Wall St.

In short, as I said early in the thread, the nation as a whole is materially poorer, and most people of the country for generations to come will be materially poorer, because Reagan was president.

Finally some substance! To my eye, those accomplishments run the spectrum from acceptable to outrageous, but I can see why Republicans would be proud.

Adding to the list:
Cut taxes before raising them.
Stopped wasting money helping poor people.
Expanded the war on drugs (job creation!).
Helped along the Savings & Loan problems (that, admittedly, I don't fully understand).

The deal with Reagan, not something ordinary member = socialist/fascist on this board could understand, was he the last American leader who wasn't socialist/fascist in disquise.

He didn't exactly go far enough when given presidency, but he was the last. There will not be another one for a long long time.

He also gave really good speeches and had the ability to rally people in oposition for socialism, hence he was dangeous, hence left has always, then and now, hated, feared and tried to mock and ignore him.

Gave really good speeches. (I'll take your word for it, I'm probably too socialist/fascist to understand them anyway.)
Anti-socialist.
Dangerous.
 
There weren't any socialists in the US before Reagan, and none after. So that's a non issue. America's "left" was barely liberal before Reagan, and there is no left now. Non-existent socialists don't oppose his memory because, you know, they are non-existent.

Does Bernie Sanders or Victor Berger count?

not in name, but whatever you call yourselves, liberals, progressives etc., you all look the same to me (and I can see rather good, thank you)

You clearly aren't looking too hard. I was going to write out a longer post detailing the vast historical gap between the liberal movements of the Enlightenment, the socialists of the 19th, and how fascism is totally not related, but it's just not worth it.
 
Maybe not...

It's not a matter of noticing. It's a matter of where He'd move it. If the universe consists of every contiguous, reachable point there's no where to move the universe to. Plus, remember, I said "at least", and specified that God was to make rock everywhere He is. If God is Eternal and Infinite and makes rock everywhere He is... that's really Everywhere.

The PC in front of you might seem to be not moving, but in fact all of its molecules are - you just don´t notice it -, and even apart fom this essence, it´s still moving, as is theEarth and the solar system, the galaxy. It´s the same with the all-encompassing-rock. Still doesn´t rule out it can - or even is - moving. (And it´s not a question of noticing, I just thought I´d notice that.)

I don't think so. To put it another way: the conventional answer limits itself to "rocks" that don't constitute a plenum. Just because it's absurd logical extreme doesn't mean God can't do it.

And that doesn't make the question itself illogical - we can still arrive at a yes/no answer.

Even absurd questions can be logically answered. That´s just the beauty of logic.

Assuming angels and pins are both strictly nonphysical, then I agree.

If both are non-physical, they question has no meaning and cannot be answered logically.

not in name, but whatever you call yourselves, liberals, progressives etc., you all look the same to me (and I can see rather good, thank you)

If you can´t (or want to) tell the difference between liberal, progressive, socialist, etc. your vision may not be as good as you seem to think.
 
So you think that a significant portion of this forum's membership - let alone that of the internet generally - is either lying or mistaken about their ideological preferences?

Actually... this might not be as far off as you think. I doubt many people study or use the proper political science definitions of political ideologies, so the potential for the latter exists.
 
Actually... this might not be as far off as you think. I doubt many people study or use the proper political science definitions of political ideologies, so the potential for the latter exists.
What IS the proper usage? What political science professors say it is, or what the masses of people say it is? I'd go with the latter. Common usage of a word determines its meaning, which is why saying "Don't forget your rubbers" to a bunch of 3rd graders would probably get you noticed by the law now, but wouldn't in the 30s when it meant winter boots.
 
What IS the proper usage? What political science professors say it is, or what the masses of people say it is? I'd go with the latter. Common usage of a word determines its meaning, which is why saying "Don't forget your rubbers" to a bunch of 3rd graders would probably get you noticed by the law now, but wouldn't in the 30s when it meant winter boots.

I'd vote against the latter. Common usage of words like "socialist" and "liberal" have striped them of any intelligible meaning. And the masses only use terms in a relative sense--strictly speaking, both major American parties are liberal parties in the poli-sci use of the word, unless one of them endorses the end of things like representative government.

The analogy is funny but I don't think it's very useful.
 
Back
Top Bottom